The same crises occur on every level. Our organization is a microcosm of the international level. By applying the solutions offered in our proposals within the organization, we demonstrate the potential of the solution to solve international problems.

Wednesday, March 9, 2016

Taking another look at the global conflict

Imagine that we have gone back in time 5,000 years, we are in what is now England, and a battle has been waged between two kings. One king stood on the principles, and the other went down into the games. The games are oppressive, and the conflict has affected some of the people financially, and others, their lives were affected. Others were not affected so much, but in England, before the time of King Arthur, there were many small kingdoms, so other kings would have watched the conflict closely, each for his own reasons. One of them most likely considered the conflict a grand opportunity to wage a hostile takeover of both kings.

If the two kings were advised to end the conflict so as not to decimate their warriors, they took the conflict to Stonehenge, but that would not be in the best interests of the king who is taking advantage of the conflict. He would use a delaying tactic, to harass and intimidate, use covert and overt actions on the population until one or both give up. He could not beat either or both in an all-out war, but time is on his side. The more mayhem he perpetrates, the more likely he will win. He starts out as an ally of the second king, but as the act of revenge continues to draw in more people, the ripples of effects go out until everyone is fighting for their life.

If the king who stands on the principles stands on all seven of them--equality, liberty, freedom, compassion, abundance, capacity and tolerance, his is unbeatable. He would be like King Richard coming back from the Crusades and the reign of King John coming to an abrupt end.

If he doesn't stand on all seven principles, the conflict will devolve into a feud, and that is much more difficult to end. It draws in future generation, and in fact, there is the possibility that history is repeating itself and we are once again facing the conflict that vandalized Stonehenge.

If that is the case, we are now taking Stonehenge to the next stage in its evolution.

Most of us like to think of ourselves of standing on the principles, but leaping back to the present times, the king who stood on the principles was Saddam Hussein, and the king who went down into the power games was George W. Bush. The third king is the man who is behind the caliphate. Saddam Hussein did not stand on the seven principles, and so he was defeated, but now the US is fighting the third king, and the ripples of effects continue to go out.

The knee jerk reaction that ends a war makes a genocide worse. The conflict has not ended with the withdrawal of US soldiers. The death of Saddam Hussein made ending the conflict that much harder to achieve.

Our organization promised to offer solutions to even the worst case global scenario, and that is a global genocide, and to demonstrate it works within our own organization based on our proposals. Just as Saddam Hussein was defamed and suffered a hostile takeover, the same thing is occurring within our organization.

The technology team is addressing where true power comes from, and how acts of revenge work and don't work. They are learning the principles and the application of the principles, and must address conflict resolution before they can create their projects.

This is where Iran comes into the global picture. The Iranians stood and watched the conflict between the United States and Iraq devolve. Before the war, Saddam Hussein sent his nuclear scientists to Iraq with the hope that his gesture would be re-payed with support from them during the conflict. Instead, Iran joined the acts of revenge against Saddam Hussein, along with Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and other nations, and a dialogue began about sharing the opportunity for a nuclear energy program. The Iranians did not trust Saddam Hussein's relationship with the Palestinians. The acts of revenge started to collapse when it became apparent that one man had greater ambitions. The power games associated with war, massacres and terrorism have reached their ultimate conclusion. The reached the exact opposite effect that was hoped for, and it started to swing the proverbial pendulum back to the midpoint, but the games associated with genocide and slavery continue on in the form of ISIS. Muslims have spread out across the planet and sleeper cells can rise at any time. The illusion continues to spread until no one knows who to trust.

To end the Iraq Genocide, someone must stand up to defend Saddam Hussein. The United States perpetrated the genocide by preemptively striking Iraq, and because it went against Universal Law, and international law, the United States is responsible for ending it. By taking the Iraqis sovereignty and inalienable rights away from them, under Universal Law, we must now guarantee their rights or lose our own.

Our first proposal ends the conflict in Iraq by recreating an event at Stonehenge on conflict resolution, and unification at Oxford between George W. Bush and one of Saddam Hussein's lieutenants. Then we will ask Saudi Arabia to host a week long mediation, then we will work to set up an international court to settle the conflict based on Universal Law, which leads to the creation of an international court system as part of the international government.

Our second proposal is a U.S. Constitutional Amendment proposal that creates the additional layer of government over what exists now.

Our organization is in crisis from the character defamation campaign, and the first step to end it was to call for a genocide watch--called Track Our Progress. The technology team has been offered the opportunity to function on a far higher level by participating in the events at Oxford and Stonehenge, but to do so, they cannot play any power games.

Karen Holmes, the founder of the organization, is parallel to Saddam Hussein, and dealing with the hostile takeover, but the organization stands on all seven principles, so the battles have drawn in those who are being dragged into the illusion.

One segment of the second family to come into the organization was offered the opportunity to function on a higher level if they harass her, and so now the focus is on that family, where one brother stood on the principles, and the other brothers have gone down into the power games. The Battles of Armageddon are raging in that family, too.

The World Peace Organization for the One World Government

Labels

Standing up to speak...

When it becomes apparent that the existing structure cannot solve the problems, the world leaders start to look for another plan, and the question becomes, whose plan will it be? The one that is chosen must already be in existence and solving the problems, no matter how far along the plan is.

It is like everyone together on a Saturday afternoon playing baseball or soccer, and suddenly the rain comes. Which game will they gather to play next?

Then, if it is a new game, the person who proposes the new idea must stand up and explain the rules.